Warning! Sensitive content! Proceed with caution!

[Riverwolf]

Father Heathen’s question was:
When it comes to sex with children, don't you think it's the victimization and exploitation that causes outrage and not some "ickyness" factor?

I seem to remember someone asking for reason and logic! Have a good day.:run:

Seems like a legit question to me. Being victimized means being the victim to a predator; unless we consider the entire society predatory to this one girl, or that all societies where young marriage happened were predatory to their female children, there is no indication that this is the case with Aisha. Exploitation involves gaining personal satisfaction from something, generally at its expense. Again, there doesn't seem to be any indication of that with Aisha, unless we consider virtually all young marriages at the time to be exploitative.

But let me clarify: nowadays, victimization and exploitation ARE the logic and reason applied; with the knowledge that we have now, there would be no instance when sex with a child is not victimizing or exploitative. I will admit that my post was not worded very clearly.

If you do consider all the instances of young marriage to be victimizing and exploitative, then OF COURSE Aisha was victimized and exploited, regardless of what the cultural norms were.

 

[Riverwolf]

BTW, guys, if you'll indulge me to use a courtroom metaphor, I'm basically playing defense right now, while you guys are being prosecutor. I do appreciate that we're all trying to be civil despite the touchiness of the subject, and I also appreciate this opportunity to exercise my own logic.

Understand that I object to all modern instances of child marriage (and especially consummation of that marriage in childhood), regardless of the culture it takes place in. I believe I've already made it quite clear that I object to all forms of sex with children, and in many cases, with young teenagers by adults. Nor do I claim that children nowadays are capable of making informed decisions, and are thus capable of giving real consent (though I don't think this ability just magically appears on a person's 18th birthday, either; I believe it would vary from person to person, sometimes as early as 16, or as late as early 20s.) I would put forward the possibility that, since education back then was really bad, one could make a stretch and say that, because people didn't know much beyond their own small villages, no one was capable of giving informed consent, but if we are to judge entire cultures that no longer exist, I don't think that would fly.

What it boils down to is this: I do not agree with judging cultures that no longer exist, or people who are long dead simply because of something they did that has no real effect on us today.

 

[Jason]

Does it not matter that she grew to be the most powerful and noble woman in Arabia? That practically half of what we know about Mohammad is because of her words? That on many accounts the line is blurred as to whether she or Mohammad was head of the household? That she appreciated and cherised her husband like only a rare few did? That she is a shining example for all Muslim women to live up to?

 

[Riverwolf]

Does it not matter that she grew to be the most powerful and noble woman in Arabia? That practically half of what we know about Mohammad is because of her words? That on many accounts the line is blurred as to whether she or Mohammad was head of the household? That she appreciated and cherised her husband like only a rare few did? That she is a shining example for all Muslim women to live up to?

I wasn't even aware of any of that. If it's true, it would definitely shed light on this subject.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I just thought of what could be the deciding question in this matter, but I don't think anyone who would be able to answer it is still reading. Nevertheless, I wish to ask it.

How did the society at the time, as well as his followers, react to the marriage?

That's just the right question, in my opinion. Are we willing to condemn all of the founders of this country for marrying girls whom we moderns consider to have been underaged? All the colonialists were immoral pedophiles for accepting the cultural norm?

On the other hand, I might be willing to suggest that Germans in the 40s were immoral for tagging along with Hitler as he brainwashed German culture against the Jews.

So it's complicated.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's just the right question, in my opinion. Are we willing to condemn all of the founders of this country for marrying girls whom we moderns consider to have been underaged? All the colonialists were immoral pedophiles for accepting the cultural norm?

On the other hand, I might be willing to suggest that Germans in the 40s were immoral for tagging along with Hitler as he brainwashed German culture against the Jews.

So it's complicated.

It's only complicated if you have double standards.

 

[McBell]

It's only complicated if you have double standards.

False dichotomy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's only complicated if you have double standards.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are saying.

You would not condemn Hitler if you had already condemned American colonists?

Yeah, I think I'm lost.

 

[Ingledsva]

It's not really a lie.

More specifically;

Indeed it isn't, and I find it funny that there is so much shock over this when it still goes on to this day in other parts of the world. National Geographic did a piece on it recently.

Also -

Talmud. "Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

MISHNAH: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.

GEMARA: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse."

For instance Rebekah, wife of Isaac was Na’ arah which means a little girl under the age of puberty.

Gen 24:16 And the damsel (NA'ARAH - PREPUBESCENT child!) was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Gen 24:59 And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her NURSE (YANAK -MILK NURSE,) and Abraham's servant, and his men.

Gen 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Indeed it isn't, and I find it funny that there is so much shock over this when it still goes on to this day in other parts of the world. National Geographic did a piece on it recently.

Are you saying that prepubescent sex is part of a modern culture? That would shock me if true. I can only (vaguely) remember one report of something like that. In some African tribal culture, prepubescent girls happily persue sex with 40ish men as part of normal village custom... if I'm remembering right, which I kinda hope I'm not.

 

[Ingledsva]

Are you saying that prepubescent sex is part of a modern culture? That would shock me if true. I can only (vaguely) remember one report of something like that. In some African tribal culture, prepubescent girls happily persue sex with 40ish men as part of normal village custom... if I'm remembering right, which I kinda hope I'm not.

Unfortunatly, yes!

Whenever Patriarchy, and especially patriarchal religions, get a hold on a culture, women become property. The way to control that property is to hand it from male-to-male at a very early age, when they can't protest, and then make laws that they die if they break marriage vows later!

There is an article in National Geographic (perhaps it is on line) called TO YOUNG TO WED The Secret World of Child Brides. June 2011

It mentions Africa, Yemen, India, etc.

It has a picture of a sick 14 year old washing her newborn baby while her "2 year old" plays near by!

There is also a sad picture of a young Samali girl, dressed in wedding finery, screaming as they send her off to her arranged marriage.

An arrest photo of a Kandahar man that repeatedly stabbed his 15 year old wife for disobeying him.

A picture of a 5 year old being married off.

A picture of an 8 year old standing with her 25 year old husband. It says she was married to him at age 6!

And don't forget the pedophile off-shoot Mormon groups here in the USA.

Young boys are sometimes victims as well. They show a 14 year old boy being married to a little girl (arranged marriage.)

I truly don't understand what is wrong with men around the world! Pedophilia is rampant!

 

[Jason]

I wasn't even aware of any of that. If it's true, it would definitely shed light on this subject.

It's very hard to miss if you actually research Muslim sources other than slanderers. Seriously, like half the commonly accepted hadith were narrarated by her.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unfortunatly, yes!

It's interesting. I read that article -- scanned it really -- and don't remember that it spoke of prepubescent sex. My understanding was that the marriages were not consummated until after puberty. Do you have any quotes about prepubescent sex?

If Mohammed had sex with a prepubescent girl, I'd think differently about him than if his bride had passed through puberty. Would you agree with that?

I truly don't understand what is wrong with men around the world! Pedophilia is rampant!

Can I ask how you define 'pedophilia'? I'm asking for a close, detailed definition. Do you believe, for example, that an 18-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl are behaving immorally to have sex, no matter when or where that happens? How about a 17-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy?

Two 14-year-old girls having sex... pedophilia?

 

[Banner]

And neither have you. (Since you don't seem to consider logic a basis.)

Therefore, both of our arguments are equally valid. I prefer to side with the "innocent until proven guilty" side.

Except for that their argument is based of reality as it is now. And yours is based of the assumption that things and humans "may have been different back then". They have the stronger case. Why you think Muhammad doesn't affect the modern world is beyond me. His teachings are still being followed today. His actions deserve to be scrutinized for the purpose of credibility.


Sexuality, virginity, and marriage are huge aspects of Islam. I'd say we are free to judge. Just like scholars examine the likelihood that Jesus was an unmarried Rabbi in his 30's.

 

[Riverwolf]

Except for that their argument is based of reality as it is now. And yours is based of the assumption that things and humans "may have been different back then". They have the stronger case. Why you think Muhammad doesn't affect the modern world is beyond me. His teachings are still being followed today. His actions deserve to be scrutinized for the purpose of credibility.

Sexuality, virginity, and marriage are huge aspects of Islam. I'd say we are free to judge. Just like scholars examine the likelihood that Jesus was an unmarried Rabbi in his 30's.

I didn't say Mohammad didn't affect modern times. I said that this specific incident didn't really affect anything.

The thing is, we have indications, apparently, that this relationship was one of pure love. In modern times, the problems arise because, even among adults, pure love is rarely there, let alone with adult-children relationships.

 

[muslim-]

I dont think its a lie. I think it was a normal practice in all cultures a long time ago.

Its a different paradigm. Mary peace be upon her was pregnant when she was 13 I believe. In Alabama they had (or still have, not sure) laws about 14 year olds getting married but with the consent of her family. Some have grandmothers that married at the age of 12, but wouldnt accept this today, so how would it be more than a century and a half ago?

Its not accurate to see practices in the world two centirues years ago, with the eyes of someone from New York City today. Or seeing practices in the the world today, with the eyes of people from that time. That would mean one is "imprisoned" in one paradigm, and unable to see beyond it. Ideas of such a person would probably be criticized a thousand years from now, by someone else imprisoned in another paradigm.

I think those who try to deny it dont see things in their historical context and try to deny it based on that.

ِAs for the points in the link. They were mentioned in some newspapers, and refuted. Usually its in the context of casting doubts on authenticity of Sahih Al Bukhari. The opening statement in the link provided, also makes me think this is the whole point. So this was probably written by one who doesnt believe in hadeeths or a Shia.

In similar refutations, there were some false quotations, mixing between things, and false analogy. How can one take from Al Tabari for instance (who stated that he collects everything said and looking up authenticity is up to the reader), and deny Al Bukhari?

What adds to the suspicion, is that it was written in a way, that leads to doubting hadeeths. The writer didnt say, for instance that the narrator may have mixed between numbers or something like that. Also, theres other narrations and chains too.

I think the age of the marriage of Aisha raa, is very hard to deny. And theres no need to be apologetic about it, if "haters" cannot see beyond their paradigm, this is their problem, not ours.

 

[Banner]

I didn't say Mohammad didn't affect modern times. I said that this specific incident didn't really affect anything.

The thing is, we have indications, apparently, that this relationship was one of pure love. In modern times, the problems arise because, even among adults, pure love is rarely there, let alone with adult-children relationships.

People following his examples affects things. If he is god's prophet and he married a nine year old...then I'd say it could have an effect. And probably did for a long time.

And I'm not sure what you are saying about the 'pure' love thing. When you say 'adult-children' relationship what are you referring to?

 

[Riverwolf]

People following his examples affects things. If he is god's prophet and he married a nine year old...then I'd say it could have an effect. And probably did for a long time.

But is there indication that it did?

And I'm not sure what you are saying about the 'pure' love thing. When you say 'adult-children' relationship what are you referring to?

I'm referring to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child, specifically either prepubescent or early pubescent.

When I say "pure love", I'm referring to what Jason said in post 363. If that was how their relationship was, then I don't see any problem with it.

 

[Songbird]

I'm referring to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child, specifically either prepubescent or early pubescent.

When I say "pure love", I'm referring to what Jason said in post 363. If that was how their relationship was, then I don't see any problem with it.

This isn't quite relevant to the topic, but pedophiles seem to use that reasoning quite often - they say they genuinely deeply love the child they assault, and the child loves them and the sexual acts.

Last year a man self-published an e-book on Amazon called "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct". He detailed how to condition and love a child in preparation for sexual acts - basically a how-to in child seduction, which included presents and candy and showering affection. He defended the meaning of the word "pedophile", which he said doesn't mean child abuser or rapist, just child-lover. And he said adult-child love is pure and natural. (The book was pulled within months.)

Whatever our understandings of cultural norms, "pure love" feels too close to modern pedophiles' defense. I'd leave it at this - compelling children into sexuality was/is normal for some cultures, and we don't know the effects it had/has on those kids. So we superimpose our views, which by all accounts tell us adult-child sexuality is harmful to children.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whatever our understandings of cultural norms, "pure love" feels too close to modern pedophiles' defense. I'd leave it at this - compelling children into sexuality was/is normal for some cultures, and we don't know the effects it had/has on those kids. So we superimpose our views, which by all accounts tell us adult-child sexuality is harmful to children.

Especially since adult-child sexuality has harmful effects whether the child is taught it is wrong or not.